Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 105 of 247

Thread: Do we still need that militia?

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    9,758

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    Inspired by Trump; going to defeat the enemy of the people with his mouth, eh?

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    A simple representation of a concept. Having our confirmation bias challenged is often annoying. A lie? Hardly. You and I view things differently and perhaps speak to different people in Canada, Europe, etc. Acid attacks, stabbings, assaults....

    To make a blanket statement that they are happy about not having guns is more of a lie than the little illustrative cartoon.

    Maybe a more productiive dialog going forward?
    Well, it's hard to have productive dialogue when you put up images that imply that everyone in most western societies outside the USA are unhappy with the gun laws of their country. Yes, Canada and Europe have had acid attacks and stabbings. You can't expect hundreds of millions of people to live in perfect harmony.

    The murder rate in the USA is four to five times higher than that of comparable countries. Even if you look at white victims, who are overwhelmingly likely to be killed by whites, the US murder rate of 2.9 per 100,000 (source, Centre for Disease Control) is still dramatically higher than that of the UK (1.2), Canada (1.68), Australia and New Zealand (less than 1 per 100,000) and the nations of the European Union (1.00).

    Given that the nations where the "good guys" rarely carry guns is so much lower than it is in the USA where the "good guys" often carry guns, your cartoon is much more misleading than what I said. In Australia, for example, tough gun laws are supported by over 85% of the population.

    Yes, you and I may speak to different people in Europe, Canada, etc. That indicates that you can't just look at these issues by talking to a small number of people.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Why on earth would you exclude blacks, hispanics, asians, etc?

    Even ay 5.3 per 100,000 we are vastly safer than most of the countries in the Americas. Across the street, Mexico is close to 20. Venezuela, don’t ask. How is Russia doing?

    Maybe it more complicated than gun ownership?

    And yes, I can expect a society without acid attacks and honor killings.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    A simple representation of a concept. Having our confirmation bias challenged is often annoying. A lie? Hardly. You and I view things differently and perhaps speak to different people in Canada, Europe, etc. Acid attacks, stabbings, assaults....

    To make a blanket statement that they are happy about not having guns is more of a lie than the little illustrative cartoon.

    Maybe a more productiive dialog going forward?
    Well, I live in one of those countries without guns and I can assure you that we prefer it that way.
    We are even glad that our police are not routinely armed.
    So who is telling porkies here?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Well, I live in one of those countries without guns and I can assure you that we prefer it that way.
    We are even glad that our police are not routinely armed.
    So who is telling porkies here?
    You guys also arrest people for speaking their minds, right? Different strokes....

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,071

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    The constitution only has a couple of paragraphs. In art. 1, section 8, the government is responsible to arm and train the militia. Also to call it up to suppress uprisings, thwart invasions, and enforce laws.

    That is a far cry from what 'militia' means in today's world.
    That would rather upset the 2nd devotees wouldn't ? Here are your uniforms, training every Tuesday evening, marching and drill all Saturday.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    What happens if tomorrow it is decided that a militia is needed for the security of a free State?

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    I guess we've beaten this sufficiently. My point is that for all the many discussions we hear about guns and the 2nd amendment, it seems that clause about the militia is overlooked. Discussions on this topic ignore that clause.

    I think we need to remember that clause, and seriously discuss whether we still need the militia they needed, and described, then.

    If we truly consider that clause, then we can, perhaps, reach the conclusion that we no longer need that militia. Some might argue we need a new type of militia for a different purpose, but the militia in the second amendment has not been needed for many years.

    And it is the second amendment that is preventing regulations of firearms.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Above flood level, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    17,701

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    He's in a militia.
    Here's Alan "at the range!"

    Jarndyce and Jarndyce

    The Mighty Pippin
    Mirror 30141
    Looe
    Dragon KA93

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by wudzgud View Post
    Wouldn't that depend on who's side the militia was fighting for?
    Fair call. The information I have seen indicates that many militia fans believe that they will be fighting against the regular forces and that was what my question was based on. They appear to believe that the regular forces would happily obey the orders of some theoretical autocrat. That seems to show that many militia fans have a very low opinion of the people who are serving the USA.

  11. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    Today's 'militia' is quite different than the 'militia' referenced in the constitution.

    The militia in the constitution was to protect the government, not protect the people from the government.

    That distinction needs to be understood.
    Good point. Thanks

  12. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    What happens if tomorrow it is decided that a militia is needed for the security of a free State?
    Why would that happen? Have the people of the UK needed such a militia lately? What about the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders? Have they needed a militia for that purpose lately?

    It appears that you feel that something that hasn't happened to a major western democracy for 150 years or so is actually a major threat. If it is such a threat, why hasn't it happened in modern times?

    Do you believe that you should prepare yourself for all other dangers that have not been realised for 150 years or more? What rationale do you use for working out what extremely unlikely dangers should be guarded against?

  13. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    Why on earth would you exclude blacks, hispanics, asians, etc?

    Even ay 5.3 per 100,000 we are vastly safer than most of the countries in the Americas. Across the street, Mexico is close to 20. Venezuela, don’t ask. How is Russia doing?

    Maybe it more complicated than gun ownership?

    And yes, I can expect a society without acid attacks and honor killings.
    I did it because, sadly, in previous discussions of this sort some people have effectively blamed the high US murder rate on blacks. I wanted to avoid black men being portrayed as the cause of the issue.

    Of course we ALL want to live in a society without acid attacks and honour killings. Why on earth do you think that having more people killed with guns is going to affect that?

    Yes, of course it's more complicated than gun ownership - so why did you put up a simplistic cartoon that said that everyone without a gun is unhappy?

    There may be a lower gun rate of violence in the USA than in South and Central America - but why compare yourselves to those regions and not to the rest of continental North America (ie Canada) which has much less homicide than the USA and is probably a much better comparison by most criteria?
    Last edited by Chris249; 09-09-2018 at 12:47 AM.

  14. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    You guys also arrest people for speaking their minds, right? Different strokes....
    Not on my watch.
    Got a link for that?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  15. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wright View Post
    "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
    cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
    doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
    felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
    arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
    laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
    arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
    “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
    of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    Pp. 54–56. "

    I guess I should just disregard this statement from the U.S. Supreme court because the venerable John Smith says otherwise. He has spoken and that's the way it is.
    Non Sequitur.

    and you damned well know it to be.

    edited to add
    the consequences
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 09-09-2018 at 04:26 AM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  16. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    51,523

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    That would rather upset the 2nd devotees wouldn't ? Here are your uniforms, training every Tuesday evening, marching and drill all Saturday.
    Actually, that might be the answer, regulate and train everyone claiming 2nd amendment rights re arms. And the government says what arms they may have, and supplies them.

  17. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Actually, that might be the answer, regulate and train everyone claiming 2nd amendment rights re arms. And the government says what arms they may have, and supplies them.
    Good shout. You could call them:


    The National Guard.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  18. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wright View Post
    "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
    cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
    doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
    felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
    arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
    laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
    arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
    “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
    of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    Pp. 54–56. "

    I guess I should just disregard this statement from the U.S. Supreme court because the venerable John Smith says otherwise. He has spoken and that's the way it is.
    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems pretty unlimited to me.

    Of course, if we come to an agreement via the high court, that the militia referenced is no longer needed, then the entire amendment is moot and we could proceed as if it's not there.

    "in common use at the time' is an effort to void what the amendment says. Cannons were in use at the time, were they not? Horses to pull those cannons were also in use. All these things the government would have provided the militia.

    I've read lots of 2nd amendment debate, both from the courts and from talking heads. After each mass shooting there is much discussion.

    My ENTIRE point is that I've not heard, in any of those discussions, questioning if that militia, the need for which was why the 2nd amendment is there, is still needed.

    This thread strays from that basic question. Today people construe the militia as armed citizens to protect the citizens FROM the government. The militia reference in the 2nd was an arm OF the government to protect the government from uprisings, the country from invasions, and to enforce our laws.

    Put in context with Art. 1, section 8, I don't think this is debatable.

    The thread question is simple. DO WE STILL NEED THE MILITIA AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION?

    I cannot understand how any reasonable mind who actually reads what the constitution says, can arrive at any conclusion other than the militia referenced in the 2nd has not been needed for quite some time.

    I take this a tad bit further, and once we render the 2nd amendment moot, as the 3rd amendment is moot, we are free to look at the public's right to 'own' weapons from a different viewpoint.

    My frustration is simple. I cannot count the times I've been reminded that the 2nd says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I have not heard, that I can recall, reference in any of these discussions to the militia, what it WAS at the time, and if we still need it.

    Sans the 2nd amendment, the constitution is silent as to the right to own firearms or other weapons.

    There is great demand in this country for sensible gun laws. Many think we should treat weapons as cars. The biggest obstacle to achieving any of this is the 2nd amendment.

    I know I'm likely repeating myself, but all I am asking for is a discussion on the singular question: Do we still need the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment, which was not a bunch of armed citizens designed to protect the citizens from the government.

    THE SUPREME COURT SOMETIMES MAKES BAD DECISIONS. They ended the Florida recount on dubious grounds. They decided corporations are people and can give unlimited money to campaigns. Just a couple I think they got wrong.

    It looks as if we are about to have a Supreme Court who will overturn Roe, and support making contraception illegal. Possibly rule the president does not have to answer a subpoena. Would you agree with those decisions?
    Last edited by John Smith; 09-09-2018 at 06:40 AM.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    30,438

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    I did it because, sadly, in previous discussions of this sort some people have effectively blamed the high US murder rate on blacks. I wanted to avoid black men being portrayed as the cause of the issue.

    Of course we ALL want to live in a society without acid attacks and honour killings. Why on earth do you think that having more people killed with guns is going to affect that?

    Yes, of course it's more complicated than gun ownership - so why did you put up a simplistic cartoon that said that everyone without a gun is unhappy?

    There may be a lower gun rate of violence in the USA than in South and Central America - but why compare yourselves to those regions and not to the rest of continental North America (ie Canada) which has much less homicide than the USA and is probably a much better comparison by most criteria?
    We don't hear about all the gun incidents. Stephanie Ruhle takes a moment every week or two and gives numbers to date for this year. Last time I caught that moment, was a week or two ago, but we are fast approaching 40,000 violent gun incidents so far this year.

    This is insane.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  20. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post


    The thread question is simple. DO WE STILL NEED THE MILITIA AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION?



    I know I'm likely repeating myself, but all I am asking for is a discussion on the singular question: Do we still need the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment, which was not a bunch of armed citizens designed to protect the citizens from the government.
    No you do not. A reserve arm of the military, like our Territorials is a good idea, but unlike your National Guard which is your (fairly) Well Regulated Militia, deploying them or regular troops against citizens is a known to be a BAD IDEA.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  21. #91
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Not on my watch.
    Got a link for that?
    How about Paul Weston for quoting Churchill? Arrested. May serve time? Or do I misunderstand the situation?

  22. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    How about Paul Weston for quoting Churchill? Arrested. May serve time? Or do I misunderstand the situation?
    Yes you do misunderstand.
    He was arrested for failing to comply with a dispersal order and on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.
    Hampshire Police has now told Mr Weston he will not be charged.
    Complaints

    The 50-year-old from Dorset was arrested after complaints from members of the public.
    He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order.
    You try telling the Texas police that you are not going to obey their instructions. Then report back to us.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  23. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    S.W. Florida
    Posts
    4,188

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Some have lost sight of the fact that The Constitution was written to define and limit the power of the federal government.

    From the Bill of Rights.....

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
    "Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."
    --- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787

    Hope the voyage is a long one.
    May there be many a summer morning when,
    with what pleasure, what joy,
    you come into harbors seen for the first time...

    Ithaka, by Cavafy
    (Keeley - Sherrard translation)

  24. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    S.W. Florida
    Posts
    4,188

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    re: A Militia of One

    This is what I think of when I think of a modern militia; not the anti-gov lunatic fringers, but good folk who will act to protect their families, communities, and our constitutional republic.

    The Long Watch, Robert Heinlein (LINK)
    Johnny sat down, mystified but flattered. He admired Colonel Towers, for his brilliance, his ability to dominate, and for his battle record. Johnny had no battle record; he had been commissioned on completing his doctor's degree in nuclear physics and was now junior bomb officer of Moon Base.
    The Colonel wanted to talk politics; Johnny was puzzled. Finally Towers had come to the point; it was not safe (so he said) to leave control of the world in political hands; power must be held by a scientifically selected group. In short—the Patrol.
    Johnny was startled rather than shocked. As an abstract idea, Towers' notion sounded plausible. The League of Nations had folded up; what would keep the United Nations from breaking up, too, and thus lead to another World War. "And you know how bad such a war would be, Johnny."
    Johnny agreed. Towers said he was glad that Johnny got the point. The senior bomb officer could handle the work, but it was better to have both specialists.
    Johnny sat up with a jerk. "You are going to do something about it?" He had thought the Exec was just talking.
    Towers smiled. "We're not politicians; we don't just talk. We act."
    Johnny whistled. "When does this start?"
    Towers flipped a switch. Johnny was startled to hear his own voice, then identified the recorded conversation as having taken place in the junior officers' messroom. A political argument he remembered, which he had walked out on . . . a good thing, too! But being spied on annoyed him.
    Towers switched it off. "We have acted," he said. "We know who is safe and who isn't. Take Kelly—" He waved at the loud-speaker. "Kelly is politically unreliable. You noticed he wasn't at breakfast?"
    "Huh? I thought he was on watch."
    "Kelly's watch-standing days are over. Oh, relax; he isn't hurt."
    Johnny thought this over. "Which list am I on?" he asked. "Safe or unsafe?"
    "Your name has a question mark after it. But I have said all along that you could be depended on." He grinned engagingly. "You won't make a liar of me, Johnny?"
    Dahlquist didn't answer; Towers said sharply, "Come now—what do you think of it? Speak up."
    "Well, if you ask me, you've bitten off more than you can chew. While it's true that Moon Base controls the Earth, Moon Base itself is a sitting duck for a ship. One bomb—blooie!"
    Towers picked up a message form and handed it over; it read: I HAVE YOUR CLEAN LAUNDRY—ZACK. "That means every bomb in the Trygve Lie has been put out of commission. I have reports from every ship we need worry about." He stood up. "Think it over and see me after lunch. Major Morgan needs your help right away to change control frequencies on the bombs."
    "The control frequencies?"
    "Naturally. We don't want the bombs jammed before they reach their targets."
    "What? You said the idea was to prevent war."
    Towers brushed it aside. "There won't be a war—just a psychological demonstration, an unimportant town or two. A little bloodletting to save an all-out war. Simple arithmetic."
    He put a hand on Johnny's shoulder. "You aren't squeamish, or you wouldn't be a bomb officer. Think of it as a surgical operation. And think of your family."
    Johnny Dahlquist had been thinking of his family. "Please, sir, I want to see the Commanding Officer."
    Towers frowned. "The Commodore is not available. As you know, I speak for him. See me again—after lunch."
    The Commodore was decidedly not available; the Commodore was dead. But Johnny did not know that.

    Hope the voyage is a long one.
    May there be many a summer morning when,
    with what pleasure, what joy,
    you come into harbors seen for the first time...

    Ithaka, by Cavafy
    (Keeley - Sherrard translation)

  25. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Yes you do misunderstand.
    You try telling the Texas police that you are not going to obey their instructions. Then report back to us.

    I’m surprised they didn’t throw in resisting arrest.

    Thank goodness he wasn’t arrested for political speach.

    To present a simple case, I’ve been reading that arrests were up under the Communications Act 2003 which defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

    Glad to hear that’s not true. I must be looking at unreliable media sources.

    To be clear, people are not being arrested under that act, correct? Not on your watch.


  26. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post

    I’m surprised they didn’t throw in resisting arrest.

    Thank goodness he wasn’t arrested for political speach.

    To present a simple case, I’ve been reading that arrests were up under the Communications Act 2003 which defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

    Glad to hear that’s not true. I must be looking at unreliable media sources.

    To be clear, people are not being arrested under that act, correct? Not on your watch.

    Again, a misunderstanding
    From Wiki
    It was declared an offence to "persistently make use of a public electronic communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety". Ofcom subsequently developed policies to reduce the number of silent telephone calls.
    A silent call is a telephone call that is generated by a predictive dialler (or dialler) which does not have an agent immediately available to handle the call. In this instance the call, may be terminated by the dialler, and the called party receives a silence ("dead air") or a tone from the telephone company which indicates the call has been dropped.
    In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) uses the term "abandoned call" instead of silent call in its regulations applying to telemarketing. "Abandoned call" in non-FTC contexts may refer to a caller who decides not to await answer before hanging up.
    https://www.numbersupermarket.co.uk/...on-act-effect/ goes into the ramifications.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Hard to know what’s true over there. I’m hearing you say info below is false.

    The point being, if your public speach is being heavily censored, it would be difficult to know the opinion of the country on issues like gun rights.

    I apoligize for the thread drift.

    I read this:

    The number of people being arrested for “online crimes of speech” have increased dramatically in London. While arrests for aggressive, threatening or hateful speech on social media declined between 2010 and 2013, the numbers rose last year. According to the Register, a total of 2,500 Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media. In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37 per cent increase since 2010. Randomly from The Independent. Don’t know its reputation. Same thing reported in other papers.

    “If it’s on the internet, it must be true.” Abraham Lincoln

  28. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    That act is normally used to prevent harassment via email and internet. It has been used, for example, against someone who threatened to murder a politician, sending her a picture of a knife, and who publicly and falsely labelled someone else as a child molester.

    Your "point" that the laws against hate speech could be used to stop opinion poll companies asking Brits their opinions about gun laws is very odd and very, very easy to show to be false. The fact is that there have been fairly recent polls among Brits about their gun laws. See for example https://news.gallup.com/poll/16990/b...-gun-laws.aspx and https://yougov.co.uk/news/2010/06/07/Ban-on-guns/. So the answer to your query is, of course, a resounding "NO- hate speech laws are NOT being used to make it hard to know how Brits feel about gun laws".

    In Australia, by the way, has both anti-hate laws and a Shooters Party (now the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party) that currently has three representatives in state governments. The SFF Party has an open, well publicised, official policy to remove obstacles to gun ownership. That illustrates very clearly that Australia doesn't have "heavily censored" public speech about gun laws - and yet Australia's fairly tight gun laws are extremely well supported by the public. It is obvious from the Australian example that massive support for tight gun laws can co-exist with speech that is so free that a pro-gun party can have representatives who are freely elected and use parliament to make speeches against gun laws.
    Last edited by Chris249; 09-09-2018 at 04:38 PM.

  29. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

    My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.”

  30. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

    My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.”
    Bollocks.
    Laws to prevent hate speech, compared with laws that facilitate the massacre of 50 odd people at a music festival.

    You cannot be serious!
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  31. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    13,936

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

    My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.”
    Might consider U.S libel laws. Admittedly laxly enforced, but if they were, Trump would have been broke, and unelected.

  32. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    From does not happen, to abandoned calls, and now threats of violence. Maybe even to saying things that are politically unpopular? 2500 arrests in London alone?

    My point being, without freedom of the press, and freedom of speach, those in England are not in much of a position to be well informed enough to participate in this discussion. Particularly not with statements indicating “all well over here.”
    Are you trying to say that Brits can't use the internet to become informed about gun laws? Are you saying that Brits cannot get hold of a copy of the US Constitution, which is a central part of the debate? Are you saying that Brits cannot listen to CNN, read the NRA site, or use the millions of other ways to become well informed enough to participate in this discussion?

    If you are trying to say that, and it seems to be the case, then it's a bizarre and untrue claim.

  33. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    Are you trying to say that Brits can't use the internet to become informed about gun laws? Are you saying that Brits cannot get hold of a copy of the US Constitution, which is a central part of the debate? Are you saying that Brits cannot listen to CNN, read the NRA site, or use the millions of other ways to become well informed enough to participate in this discussion?

    If you are trying to say that, and it seems to be the case, then it's a bizarre and untrue claim.
    He is backed into a corner and has started lashing out in frustration.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,283

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    I believe libel is a civil action in the US. Though not sure about Louisiana. No penal code violation. Nobody gets arrested.

    Important difference. Even England (shocking) got rid of the old action for criminal libel if I recall correctly. Now it’s criminally politically unpopular.

    PS-The Second Amendment is an article of the United States Constitution. Not a legislative enactment. Anyone ready for a Constitutional Convention? Careful what you ask for.

  35. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    41,456

    Default Re: Do we still need that militia?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedog225 View Post
    PS-The Second Amendment is an article of the United States Constitution. Not a legislative enactment. Anyone ready for a Constitutional Convention? Careful what you ask for.
    Good. back to the OP. The second has been corrupted by the SCOTUS through the years, and as the militia as called for in the Constitution has been replaced by the National Guard, the second is now superfluous and can be repealed.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •